SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(Mad) 663

K.P.SIVASUBRAMANIAM
Thangamani – Appellant
Versus
Santhiagu – Respondent


Advocates:
V. Natarajan, for Petitioner. R. Nandakumar, for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. This Second Appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Madurai North at Dindigul, in A.S.No.165 of 1983 reversing the judgment of the learned District Munsif, Dindigul, in O.S.No.222 of 1980. The plaintiff in the suit is the appellant in the above Second Appeal.

2. According to the plaintiff, the suit property is comprised in Survey No.148/3 in Adiyanoothu village. The entire extent was 1 acre and 65 cents. Originally it was owned by one Kitheri Ammal and by a series of sales the plaintiff purchased the property in the year 1972 from one Pitchamuthu Servai. He was in possession of the entire extent doing personal cultivation and the suit property was shown in the plain plan as A to J. The defendant owns the property north of the plaintiffs property and the same was comprised in Survey No.148/1B. Taking advantage of the fact that the plaintiff was an absentee landlord, the defendant in the course of one year had slowly encroached upon the plaintiffs property to an extent of 18 cents. He had shifted the ridge separating the properties to south and it was known to the plaintiff only two or three months prior to the filing of the suit. The pla
























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top